The right not to bake a cake?

Re “The gay wedding cake case,” editorial, Dec. 6

The argument that the Colorado cake baker’s free speech and freedom of religion are being infringed upon if he is punished for refusing to serve a samesex couple is specious.

The purpose of the cake baker’s case is to allow religious beliefs to become a valid reason to discriminate against any class of people. Let’s turn this reasoning on its head.

What happens when the customer asserts that his or her religious beliefs insist on tolerance? Now the customer’s religious beliefs are attacked.

We now have in this country religious institutions and hospitals that are refusing to honor the reproductive rights of their employees and patients as well. Some businesses are asserting that their religious beliefs allow discriminatory hiring and limitation of the freedoms of their employees — think the Hobby Lobby case.

Slope slippery much? Joanne M. Mell

San Diego

There is a much better argument for allowing the baker to refuse a cake for a gay couple than claiming it is an “expression.”

It is far more than an expression. It is a participation in a ceremony that violates the baker's beliefs. As such his refusal should be allowed.

No one should be forced to participate in a ceremony that violates his own religious beliefs. Don Tonty

Los Angeles

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That is the complete language of the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Those carefully chosen words seem to cancel the baker’s “right” to deny service on religious grounds. Why the 9th Amendment hasn’t previously been cited regarding this and similar individual rights issues is astonishing to me. Kerry Burnside

La Habra